American society as a whole, and politics in particular, has become considerably ruder, cruder, and more paranoid than it used to be. Many factors have contributed to this latest round of cultural degeneration, but I think the Internet deserves to get more than a smidgen of the blame — and that’s a heck of a thing to say for a guy who is on the net incessantly because he makes a living as a professional blogger.

So why has the Internet so uniquely contributed to the deterioration of our society?

Well, you have individuals from all over the world who can talk anonymously to people with whom they have no personal connection, and they can say absolutely anything without fear of being punched in the nose. Put another way, the Internet takes away all the factors that keep people from saying the rude things that they may be thinking, but wouldn’t blurt out if they were face to face with another human being. On a more sinister note, the Internet allows misfits, sexual deviants, and sociopaths to form communities outside the mainstream where they can reinforce each others’ values. Instead of being a weirdo or loner that society may be able to cajole back towards normalcy through negative social reinforcement, everyone from pedophiles and conspiracy theorists to hackers and “I did it for the lulz” trolls can meet up with hundreds of like-minded souls on the net who tell them what they’re doing isn’t abnormal; to the contrary, it’s great!

That sort of compartmentalization is one of the reasons politics has become so ferociously partisan. On the Internet, people have broken up into small, like-minded groups where they have minimal contact with people who disagree with them. As a result, there is little pressure to show respect for the opinions of people who see the world differently — since those people are, for the most part, not present. It means that facts that run contrary to their ideology will tend to be viewed with suspicion at best and will be totally ignored at worst, thereby creating groupthink on a titanic scale.

112 Comments, 112 Threads

You are right that the use of Internet could damage you in different ways. I see it as a consequence of today’s short time span. The “MTV generation” is not able to sit still and listen to a full sentence or a long paragraph. It is has to be mixed up with sound effects and quick bits of data in a rapid tempo. But I would say that I am optimist anyway and I am sure that you could find the on/off button if you want…

I am using the Internet as a tool for productive things, like writing a comment to your post! You could find good stuff on the Net and the world wide web is a great source in many ways. I am glad that I can connect with rational individuals out there in cyberspace.

You could both be a renaissance man, taking inspiration from the ancient history, and fight for a brighter future at the same time.

People in cars think they are in their own little world and can go ballistic and be complete jerks because they are behind the wheel and protected by a bit of metal and glass.

OF COURSE there are REAL people behind their computers. HELLO? *waving* -And, just like in REAL LIFE there are evil people who are hell-bent on destruction and there are good people heaven-bent on truth and righteousness.

-But, in the end… Opinions are like uhm…er…eh…the ten percent of our brains that actually get used to spew them and sometimes our opinions matter and sometimes they are an embarrassment that is better left UNsaid and UNwritten.

Cato’s Letters and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers were all written by anonymous authors. Ben Franklin, “the first urban American), was an anonymous pamphleteer. Among other things, Franklin co-founded the University of
Pennsylvania. So, far from simple coarseness, anonymity can sometimes breed the foundation of an Ivy League institution.

I think your point about the Internet breeding short attention spans is incorrect, as well. I know the nostalgic like to wax on about the Lincoln-Douglass debate, or airy speeches by Edmund Burke in Parliament, but I suspect it’s a fallacy to assume the culture as a whole actually followed these events. I know, we’re told in history books (that don’t cite contemporary sources) that newspapers printed transcripts, and
citizens gathered around sharing papers to read of these winded speeches.

But, it doesn’t follow from the existence of CSPAN that citizens commonly follow the speeches made by Congress-members, and I’m not convinced that an 1850s American, or 1770s Englishman was all that different. With the exception of Ron Paul’s ‘Dollar Hegemony’ speech to Congress in 2006 passed around like wildfire from Google Video, I can find little evidence that CSPAN speeches are really watched by anyone.

And I also don’t accept your assertion that the Internet mainstreamed pornography. The claim just doesn’t hold up. It becomes difficult to believe once one understands that names like Ginger Lynn and John Holmes were well known before the creation of the World Wide Web, that the Playboy logo enjoyed household recognition, and that individual porn films were known well enough that
the most infamous informant of the 1970s was nicknamed Deep Throat.

And next I’d like to address your point about hyperpartisanship. It’s common to think of the eras were grew up in the natural normal, as the world changes later in life, but I believe the world from the 1940s until the last few years was the deviation. Schlesinger’s ‘Vital Center’, I believe, was an era of unnatural suppression for an English-speaking culture. And I believe broadcasting and the foundation of mass media in several ways served to maintain it. Consider how free-wheeling opinion must have been from the 1930s and before.

Until FDR profoundly changed America, fascism, socialism, communism, anarchism (individualist, market, communitarian, and all sorts), republicanism, social credit, georgism, and many other ideologies openly engaged in competition, but that died with FDR’s defeat of Father Coughlin. We know what textbooks say about him. He was an Anti-Semite, an extremist, yadda-yadda-yadda, but he was ‘America’s Anchorman’ of sorts at one time. We may remember that the FCC took away his microphone, but few probably remember that losing his nationally-syndicated radio show didn’t defeat him. The truth is that he continued to be a successful pamphleteer for a time, as his newsletter continued to be delivered with a wide circulation.

That’s when FDR went further to destroy him. The US Postal Service stopped delivering his pamphlets, and as the US Mail has a monopoly in parcel delivery, he was effectively censored. FedEx didn’t exist yet, so he couldn’t just bundle newsletters in freight, so it was over. “Extremism”, which was actually pretty popular until that time, was over. Before that time, figures like Emma Goldman, Leo Tolstoy- and Mark Twain was a major anti-war figure- enjoyed popularity for their opinions, and weren’t shunned as extremists, as they would be today, or worse, during the highly-repressive Cold War.

Let me offer my opinion – as an “anonymous” web contributor and denizen of the blogosphere.
I have conservative views, recently discovered (ie over the past 5 years) but socially, familially, and career-wise, I am surrounded by Leftism. oh there are some kindred spirits, certainly. I’m not completely alone in that there are some who know and who think the same as me. But there is real jeopardy in speaking my mind and attaching my name to it.
The great thing is that I can participate in online discussions, express my opinions that are taboo in my real life, and by interacting with others of like mind, refine and improve my outlook and beliefs.

So the anonymity is a bonus for me. But because I know (and love) people in real life who have diametrically opposed views, I don’t – can’t – trash those views online the way others do. When someone is trolling koslike at PJ or elsewhere, my temptation to insult them is tempered by the lingering thought…. “What if that’s uncle stan? He’s been getting into the online thing lately. WOrse: what if it’s my brother or my mother?” So I’ll use sarcasm and (in my mind) witty put-downs, but really try to treat all with as much respect as I can manage in the circumstances.

Having said all that, your points about anonymity are valid. I see too many people using anonymity to do drive-by trolls, defamation, abuse, and outright bullying. It’s likely that real identities would put a stop to that. One solution that would solve my problem as well as reduce anonymity-abuse (“anonabuse?”) would be “real world” registration with the site, using real names but made up screen names. The site (e.g, pajamasmedia) knows the true identity, but people are free to talk anonymously to other members.
Some online communities already use this model.

By the way, I’ve been posting as “daddy dave” around the conservasphere for several years, but am planning to lift the veil of anonymity and start blogging with my true name, rather than just hanging around PJ, Tim Blair, Townhall and others.

No, it improves our culture for it allows for suppressed opinions to surface.

It is agitprop organs like NPR and PBS that are menaces to culture.

This “anonymous” business is just a Trojan horse. What they really mean to do is stifle speech. When people voice opposition to the left, they will send the Acorn and MoveOn stormtroopers after them. I have heard of people who were de facto fired when their political contributions to the GOP were made known. In the future this sort of behavior needs to be met with the response of litigation.

It is time that we cast aside our inhibitions and faced the fascism of the Left head on.

Their plans may backfire though as turn about is fair play. Certainly had I known the identities of some of the moonbats I have met online I would have had an attorney contact their employers to see if they want such people representing them.

I will point out one irony: The left fabricates a constitutional right to privacy in order to justify abortion. Is this “right to privacy” to now be abandoned in the pursuit of silencing dissent?

Oh, and American society is considerably leaa rude than in days past. This is just a nostagial for an imainged past on the part of those whole hold this view.
This is because the left has intimidated people in to silence. One hopes that this is about to change.

Rudeness in the face of such vileness is at times the only reasonable response. No one has a constitutional right to be not to be offended.

I think one way of combating the negative effects of the internet is to try to create certain positive cultural norms online. I don’t exactly know how to do that, but I try in my own small way. For example, even when I a disagree with another commenter, I try to remain polite, and I do my best to use logical arguments, not emotional appeals and name-calling. I always use standard English grammar and punctuation. I teach at a private classical school, and, outside of school, most of my students spend a lot of time online in chat rooms, Facebook, blogs, etc. All of my students know how to write well, and they have all taken formal logic. I have repeatedly encouraged them to use these skills when communicating online. I tell them that it is their responsibility to make sure that their online acquaintances are at least exposed to logical reasoning and excellent writing, even if it is just one good line in a Facebook status update.

The internet is a politicians worst nightmare, imagine if it was in place when we had the “Tonkin Gulf Incident”. Or if it was not around when Dan Rather “produced” those phony documents against Bush?
Yes, we have turned into a 15 second sound bite society. That is a reason Fred Thompson could not get far in his campain, he does not speak in sound bites.

The political correctness that permeates the Anglo culture and social discourse has reached such a height that words are meant to convey no meaning only incoherent sound effects. Never ever under Communist dictatorship – where some of us spent a great deal of our life – ones tried to censor their thought, their emotions nor tried to hide their healthy human expression.

Have you heard of Shamizdat?
(From WIKI;Samizdat was the clandestine copying and distribution of government-suppressed literature or other media in Soviet-bloc countries. Copies were made a few at a time, and those who received a copy would be expected to make more copies.)

The societal mentality deteriorated in the Anglo sphere (Brits included) to the point that no average citizen has the courage to speak his/her mind for well founded fear of retribution some sort which will cost him dearly. People don’t know what is permissible to say and what is not; – the safe bet is to say cheese.

One can sense the thick cloud of fear which descends and engulf the entire Anglo mainstream society.
Unlike you, we fought for our freedom from Liberal Fascism, many of us paid with their life or with their freedom and many disappeared in the bottomless pit of the Gulag for good.
But we won our freedom and you are about to loose.

I didn’t do well as a kid in school but I always loved libraries and books. Unfortunately my high school was like something out of the ’40′s. Nice ladies and what, but stilted. I can remember waling into Harvard and into one of their libraries. I felt drunk. Until security came and gave me the boot.

So, now how does Mr. Hawkins count me now getting free lectures from Nobel economists, Yale economist, Youtube vids on how to change my O2 sensors and save a weeks pay, and on and on?

I find people no more rude than they are in real life. And many times online you learn what they are really thinking rather than what they want you to think they are thinking. The internet cuts both ways… its saved me a few annoyances/possible pratfalls in the past with people that is for sure.

I know it was a graphical trick, but my first home computer was a Compaq, and when the first time it was powered on, some clever person designed it to look as if we were traveling through outer space. Without the internet, I think the computer would be a fancy limited word and mathematical processor and with the internet has unlimited possibilities. I agree with the other writers that rude, crude and paranoid have always been there (and not limited to the United States), we’re just seeing it in another venue.

Without the internet, the MSM would have information embargoed tighter than Tass. Give me the rude, crude world of honesty.

And if some people insist on making asses of themselves, so much the better. I’d rather know that the left is run by window-licking tards with a 10-word vocabulary than be deceived into thinking that they’re all like the polite but plastic reporters on TV.

Agreed entirely. I’ll be the first to admit I’m responsible for some of that behavior. I do find it really hard to keep up a good, well-meaning persona when it feels like everyone online could be out to get you. The number of comments I get on my blog only designed to try and make me look stupid is just stunning and unceasing. It’s like the number of people who can say “thank you” and more importantly “sorry” on this thing can be counted on one hand.

Typewriter King, you are spot on. I suspect that most folks here could recent a line or two or more from the Gettysburg Address, but not many could tell you about the substance of the Lincoln/Johnson debates. A great message delivered concisely is something I appreciate.

The occasional typo is (to me) an indication that your cogent thoughts come screaming off the tips of your fingers and fearlessly hurled into the PJM maw with little or no editing.

To be clear, I admire your ability think and express “on your feet” as it were. You and David Thompson and cfbleachers and the others here are why this is so-o-o-o-o much better than reading some left-wing crapola in newsprint over my morning Cheerios.

I must respectfully disagree with much of your analysis here, and would echo some of the preceding comments regarding pornography, etc. If anything the Internet has acted in some ways as an amplifier for behaviors and attitudes that have existed for, well, millennia. I believe anyone who was a very active CompuServe user, before the Internet became mainstream, would see this.

I was developing internet-centric software as far back as 1994 (SOCKS servers, CGI-BIN libraries, commercial web sites, etc.) and actively engaged in chat and forum technology / activity on a daily basis back when the only web browsers available were Mosaic and IBM’s WebExplorer. I might be deemed one of the many ‘founding members’ of the netizen community and I’ve been observing and lamenting this lack-of-civility phenomenon for over a decade. Based on that experience, I don’t believe the sources of behaviors and resulting fallout you’ve described are so simple.

Also, those behaviors are not quite so evenly distributed as your indictment of “American society as a whole” would suggest. The coarseness, vitriol, rudeness, crudeness and paranoia is far more highly concentrated among certain groups than others.

Anonymity plays an important role in the phenomenon you’re lamenting, but it goes deeper, I think, than a lack of tangible accountability for one’s behavior – although that is certainly a factor for many on-line. I’ll explain.

With the Internet we have been suddenly, almost magically, connected to everyone else who has access. As such, our sphere of human interaction has been increased by orders of magnitude almost instantaneously. That has forced us to learn to communicate in a whole new way. We’re still feeling our way through that and, in some areas, not with a lot of success – yet.

B.W. (Before Web), we lived in a relatively insular world. In that world we interacted directly and indirectly within a familiar milieu. More often than not we had at least some small knowledge of the character of those in that milieu – a familiarity that extended, at least, beyond words on a screen, even if it was only the ability to look them in the eye, note their gender, check the cut of their clothes, measure the length of their hair or determine whether or not they were a german shepherd.

But that has all changed. Now, lacking any tangible framework of familiarity with the person(s) we’re addressing in our on-line communications, we settle on a surrogate. And in that, many of us rely on stereotypes. This is particularly true in the realm of political intercourse, where identity politics have become the defining factor for certain social groups. In this context a lot of folks tend, more often than not, to shout past the individual they’re actually addressing and, instead, address the stereotype that individual appears to fit based on an exchange or two.

I’ve been the target of this sort of ‘mistaken identity’ on more than one occasion. For instance, years ago I commented that the 1993 Assault Weapons Ban was ‘bad legislation’ because it purposely confused the difference between semi-automatic and automatic weapons. When asked how, before I could respond, another individual in the group stated that it was because I had my “lips planted firmly on Charlton Heston’s ass”. It was then necessary for me to point out that I never cared much for the guy, or his rhetoric, and was not an NRA member, which left the interloper somewhat speechless. This was while sitting at lunch with co-workers, not while at a computer. The one interrupting was my boss who, incidentally, had been a combat officer in Viet Nam and was, therefore, rather intimately familiar with the difference between a semi-auto and a true assault rifle. He knew better, yet his knee-jerk reflex kicked in and forced his foot into his mouth. So I know that this behavior exists both on-line and in person. Its effect is amplified on-line.

For some, who rely on identity politics as their guide, this sort of thing also tends to cross issue boundaries on-line, to where one’s view on one issue is used to extrapolate views on all issues – at least those important to one’s audience. This is why one’s views on abortion or gay marriage, for instance, can result in one being labeled a “neo-con” despite the fact that one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. As such, many people respond to on-line comments based on a completely inaccurate mental image of the person they’re addressing. The underlying assumption absolutely does “make an ASS out of U and ME” because one or both sides typically spend more time clarifying their own position – or erroneously attacking that which is NOT someone else’s – than they do actually communicating. This process is both emotionally frustrating and, ultimately, psychologically threatening – we actively resist acknowledging what Roger Kimball recently noted as “anagnorisis“, because it would reveal the lack of depth and patience we’ve allowed to define our communication.

IMHO, whatever its various effects, this reliance on defining others through stereotypes, and the willingness to be defined by identity politics is the cause of what you perceive as hyper-partisan behavior. It’s not the Internet that is the primary driver behind that, it’s willful ignorance.

In terms of whence the vitriol, rudeness and crudeness emanates most reliably, that is absolutely the domain of the moral adolescents who subscribe to leftist ideology, as referenced up above. That crudeness takes its toll, unfortunately. I recall back in Army Basic Combat Training, how I – a mild-mannered geek who rarely uttered a curse word – was transformed into someone whose every sentence included a minimum of 5 F-bombs (even if the sentence contained only four other words). In short: it’s contagious. When one realizes that the adolescent one is addressing has not yet learned a civil dialect, one reverts to their dialect or is simply not heard. When one detects that “11″ is the only volume level capable of drowning out the unhinged, irrational rage of the respondent, one must at times crank the volume that high or be dismissed, ignored or simply lost in the noise.

So, sorry John, I can’t accept the P.C. conclusion that “everyone” is responsible for the lack of civility on the web, or that it’s solely caused by a lack of accountability stemming from anonymity. It starts with one group, primarily, and spreads from there. The fact is that – both on-line and in person – a crude, rude, profane manner of comportment has become increasingly tolerated in our society. The reason is simple: adolescents simply don’t care to be civil. And presently there’s no longer any motivation for it. There are no longer any tangible negative social consequences attached to being a creep. Simple and almost as benign as it seems, this may just be the one indicator that signals the decline of our culture – even more than our collective ignorance, apathy or willingness to accept the utterly irrational as valid.

While this doesn’t absolve everyone of their responsibility, the conversation is getting more shrill for a reason. What we’re learning is that when we DON’T shout back, when we DON’T get in their faces and when we DON’T try to stop them in their tracks with a few well-placed profanities, we allow the moral adolescents of the left to control the national political discourse and, with it, the media narrative that ultimately controls our real-life future. That’s how we got the inexperienced empty-suit we have in the White House today – and all the pestilence that will follow tomorrow.

There will always be a criminal element to ANYTHING that is GLOBAL. The internet is GLOBAL. Hello WORLD!

I’ve gotten ‘net lazy though. I Google recipes rather than looking them up in my huge collection of dusty cookbooks…I’m a google junkie. It’s become a crutch of some sorts. There are days when I say, “Self? You need a time-out from the internet!” and then I respond, “Oh yeah? Can I at least google the ‘Self-help’ for internet addiction” first?” I might as well be addicted to oxygen.

umm, Internet, it’s where I learnt the crude english vocabulary, and where I learnt to respond to it in a kind of “game” too, and it helped me to improve my practice of the english language ; though “rudeness” isn’t only defined by “words”, but also by intentions, even written with refined vocabulary.
It’s also where I can better understand the different policies perspectives, and thus appreciate the distance from my points of view.

Got the opportunities to “meet” great personalities either. When you have such a chance, It’s easier to forget the “bad” things that you may encounter, so the net is quite a positive tool. Umm, I usually post under my name, so I assume my part

the Internet is also the primary driver behind hyper-partisanship, has coarsened the culture, helped to mainstream perverse sexual content, widely spread paranoia and rumors, shortened attention spans, and helped eat away the shared culture that has helped to anchor Americans.

I would argue that talk radio also played a role in driving hyper-partisanship. As far as a coarsening of culture, I think the Internet deserves much less blame than Commercial TV, which has been working hard at this for decades.
I’m not sure what you consider to be “perverse sexual content”, but probably most of it is quite tame by any reasonable standard. Likewise Commercial TV has played a large role in shortening attention spans and reducing the shared culture to ‘American Idol’.

Paranoia and rumors have always been around – it is just easier to find them on the internet. The flipside is that it is also easier to debunk them.

#23 Marie Claude – “Got the opportunities to meet great personalities either.” That shoud be ‘too’, or ‘also’, not ‘either’ (as long as you’re learning). And I’m glad you got the opportunity to encontre MOI!

I find that the personalities on the ‘Net are the same as the ones I meet in real life. They watch a lot of TV, and as it gets coarser, so do they. I find that people clump in groups the same way in their personal lives, too. It gets kind of lonely here in Liberal-land, WA, as I won’t associate with Liberals like some of you apparently do.

I used to be considered a rude fellow. I’ve always been one to say please, thank you, Sir, and Ma’am. However, I have also been one to stand right up and call you on your crap. I don’t cuss much, but I find the occasional Anglo-Saxon monosyllable to be just the right thing to deliver the needed emotional juice.

I’m now pleased to find that many people are more rude than me. Pleased? Um, maybe gratified… no, um, well… there’s a silver lining! I am now considered rather polite and refreshing. How sad is that?

I like that people on the ‘Net feel comfortable speaking their minds. (I’ve always felt that way, so I post under my own name.) Now, instead of their facade, you get to see the mask slip. Look at some of the trolls who post here. Over time, you can see the Marxism come out in some like Steve P and Rotwang. You can see cedarford’s Jew-hating. Go to huffPo or Kos, and you can view the vileness in all its raging glory. It’s like stepping into the sewer. That cannot possibly last, can it? In the end, I think the ‘Net will be the death of Leftism.

Right, right: and we should all dress up in suits to fly anywhere, our doctors should make house calls, and we should all go to church regularly on Sunday. And maybe all “real” journalists ought to have licenses so the rude interlopers won’t spoil everything with their exposes.

Ask Joe The Plumber and many that watched the pubic outing of everything about him if using real names when challenging a political figure is the way to restore decency to political discourse.

Ask the people chased by Elliot Spitzer over the years if they dared speak out in public against him.

Ask the people who supported Prop 8 in California (I didn’t) and whose names are now due to be disclosed in public if they are happy about it. Or just ask the waitress at a local bar who donated money to Prop 8 and triggeerd a boycott of the bar.

Anonymity has been reognized as a powerful tool for truth and a shield from abusive officials–from Ben Franklin’s anonymous submission lampooning a local politician to Deep Throat. Mongoose has it right: stripping anonymity is motivated only by a desire to haul commentators out where they can be harassed and humiliated.

Yes, that is pretty much happens: I tend to dash it off the top of my head and sometimes do make typos. Sorry about that. A preview feature might help (hint, hint)

I also often type while in transit, or from a couch with a lap top actually on my lap, and that does not help.

I figure that the level is so high here that it does not matter that much, and I do not want to break my chain of thought by editing too much. Sorta like jazz.

I find if I treat it more spontaneously, it works better, and i can ease my frustrations a bit by being a little more direct. A lot of my commenting has to do with irritation with the MSM and the lack of the real communication between us all. I imagine that I am not alone in this.

The blogs on PJM have a higher level of people–a great mixture of different background, all of which are interesting and meaningful to me.

Much of your post is quite reasonable, but I must point out that you succumb to the same forces you decry.

The coarseness, vitriol, rudeness, crudeness and paranoia is far more highly concentrated among certain groups than others.

Your assertion that there is more coarseness, vitriol, rudeness, crudeness and paranoia on the left is not backed up by anything more substantial than your own opinion. You are thereby contributing to the very cultural damage being described here. As you note, this is an indication of “willful ignorance” on your part.

I also find this quite funny:

I recall back in Army Basic Combat Training, how I – a mild-mannered geek who rarely uttered a curse word – was transformed into someone whose every sentence included a minimum of 5 F-bombs (even if the sentence contained only four other words). In short: it’s contagious.

You note that the Army helped you develop your cursing ability, while at the same time stereotyping those who use profanity as “leftist”. Note the cognitive dissonance. The Army is hardly a bastion of leftists.

It starts with one group, primarily, and spreads from there. The fact is that – both on-line and in person – a crude, rude, profane manner of comportment has become increasingly tolerated in our society. The reason is simple: adolescents simply don’t care to be civil.

In your case, it appears to have started with the Army, and spread from there. Last time I checked, the Army won’t admit adolescents.

That you believe a failure to “shout back, get in their faces and stop them in their tracks with a few well-placed profanities” is what led to the election of Barack Obama, only speaks to your own failure to look closely at the actual reasons people have for political choices.

If you would stop stereotyping the left as a bunch of foul-mouthed adolescents, and take some time to understand why their policy positions are favored by the majority of Americans, you might not need to use so many curse words in your own life.

The on-line left has, in my experience and that of many others, been much harsher, nastier, uncouth and generally ill-behaved than the right. The comments sections of blogs offer a pretty good look at this.

The internet does indeed facility the creation of “echo chambers” where like-minded individuals can get together and wind each other up. A possible example of this effect could be “Bush Derangement Syndrome” – that fading mindset that exhibits near psychotic derangement of political thought.

However, there are plenty of other echo chambers that predate the net. The urban left culture relied more on the easy communications in urbania, and has been around a long time. Crazy conspiracy theories floated around the world during the Reagan administration, and few had internet access then. The large scale disorder among the youth of the late sixties spread like wildfire, and had no internet mechanism. Even so, there were many looney groups of like, closed minds (such as Ayers’ SDS Weathermen).

The internet, on the other hand, also allows those who had no easy way to communicate – such as a lot of red-state people – to form communities of thought. Some of these will get whacky, but others will fill important roles.

In another area, consider the phenomenon of 9-11 “truthers.” That is certainly a derange bunch. However, various UFO groups, ranging from sane to looney, existed long before the internet.

The internet is certainly changing things, but I think the verdict is still out about whether it leads to more divisiveness or the opposite.

You’re a complete idiot. I noticed you didn’t say one word about pornography, which is more damaging to our society and young people than any thing bloggers and internet groups could ever do. Your problem is, you see the internet as a problem because that’s what Obama used to assist in getting his message out and ultimate victory. It’s not our fault that Republicans are behind the times. Also, the fact that people can say what they want without fear of getting punched in the nose is a good thing. According to you it’s better to hold things in and not express your opinion, right? People are not stupid, they don’t just go online and believe ever piece of crap they read. Of course there are idiots out there with weird views and screwed up opinions. But I would much rather them be up front and know what they are thinking, than be allowed to fester in the dark and manifest somewhere else in much grosser exhibitions. It’s great way to anonymously keep up with what the KKK, and neonazis are doing. The election is over, get over it. If you want to win next time, get some new ideas, do some community organizing, internet contacts and a huge youth following. I doubt you guys can do it though. Because you’re still stuck in the 50s.

Your article is correct. The anonymity provided in blog comments allows usually reasonable people to make outrageous, rude comments with no fear of being revealed publicly as the jerks they really are. Some blogs, like Politico, draw the stupidest comments you are likely to see.

It is done on both right-wing and left-wing blogs even though John Moore and others here would have you believe it’s just those dirty liberals who are guilty.

What John Hawkins describes in his article is not a cause, but another symptom of some basic problems.

One of the problems is that politicians and the media have learned how to game the system. How many Congressional Representatives lose an election? Answer: about the same number of the old Supreme Soviet that lost an election. And what is the percentage of self-identified Democrats in the media? By all reports it is well over 90%.

Gerrymandering of Congressional districts is a genuine problem, which leads to partisanship and extreme positions. The Party that gerrymanders, for example, may take a half-dozen districts, and re-draw the lines so one district has 80% Republicans, and the other 5 have a 52% – 48% Democrat majority.

The result is that five districts end up with Democrat Representatives, and one district ends up with a Republican. The system has been gamed. With a nominal 50/50+/- Democrat/Republican statewide voting population, the end result is a heavy preponderance of Democrat Congressmen. California, which is basically a conservative state, is a prime example of the result of gerrymandering. It has ended up with hard-left liberal politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Antonio Villaraigosa. These politicians could not be elected without gerrymandering, and they certainly do not reflect the views of ordinary working Americans.

There are many proposed solutions to gerrymandering, all of which are superior to the current system. One is requiring that Congressional districts can be no more than twice as long in one direction as in the smallest direction. Currently, some districts are over 200 miles long, and at some points only a few hundred yards wide. The result is that politicians choose their voters, rather than voters being allowed to choose their representatives. Thus, Representatives can almost never be voted out.

Another basic problem is the preponderance of left leaning university, college, high school and elementary school teachers, who can not be fired unless, as the saying goes, they are caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl. Why the heavy infestation of far left teachers? Here’s why:

During the Viet Nam war I was called up for the draft. I enlisted. Everybody was called up for the draft… except certain individuals who were eligible for a draft deferment. Majoring in Education provided a coveted draft deferment, so many of my friends switched their major to Education, while I went to Viet Nam. Naturally, many of them continued on with their Education major.

Tens of thousands of young men who would have been drafted, except for their Education deferments, went into teaching. For the past 35 years they have taught their impressionable students that they were the heroes for “resisting” the draft, and those who served were the villains. Why? Because they had to rationalize their cowardice; they knew that other American boys were maimed, and died, who served in their place, when they took the option to hide out from serving their country.

Another basic corrupting influence is money. Not pay — elected officials are paid extremely well, and have taxpayer-funded staffs who are also highly paid. I am referring to actual corruption, and it occurs in both Parties. It is really incredible how cheaply politicians and government employees can be bought.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein directed campaign contributions to members of the powerful Military Appropriations subcommittee that she chaired — the result was that her husband, Richard Blum, received committee approval for tens of millions of dollars in no-bid contracts. Feinstein was forced to resign as Chair of the committee when that corruption was made public. How many have ever heard of that scandal? Very, very few, I’m sure.

And Sen. Barbara Boxer, a highly paid Senator, with a staff that was paid $millions every year by taxpayers, used the Senate Post Office to kite literally hundreds of bad checks made out to “cash,” which she did not repay despite repeated demand letters. Only when a Post Office worker blew the whistle to the newspaper was Boxer forced to repay the bad checks. What if you kited even one bad check to the Post Office? Would you be given a pass like Boxer? And yet this was pretty much covered up by the media. There were a few isolated reports, but if Boxer had been a Republican [I'm not, BTW], she would have been skewered until she resigned.

There are similar stories across the board, from the numerous tax cheats that 0bama seems to prefer, to a tax cheat who never even filed returns for years, and who may possibly win the Minnesota Senate election by hook or by crook; to NASA’s [presumably "public servant"] James Hansen, who has been paid close to a million dollars from leftist foundations with a UN/global warming agenda. If a million dollars results in NASA receiving $400 million in this year’s bailout, it’s money well spent by those corrupt individuals gaming the system.

No, the internet isn’t the problem. It’s deeper than that. The internet is just another symptom.

You know who should get a lot of the blame for the coarsening of our culture? Brian Lamb of C-Span, and I’m not trying to be funny. I say this despite the 5476 extant tributes to the guy, telling us what a wonderful civic contribution blah, blah, blah…

For decades now, and starting before the Internet took off, the most crude anti-Semitism, and the most whack-job conspiracy theories, were aired regularly, from 7AM-10AM EST by uninterpreted callers to Washington Journal. This daily exposure helped make filth part of the “wallpaper” of our culture.

All I have to say is that before the internet and talk radio (before Reagan) we were never permitted the “racist” speech of opposing the Left’s racial preferences and discrimination without universal shout downs from the liberal mainstream press.

We were never permitted to challenge and ridicule the man-hate agenda of the Left’s feme-nazis. Like today, the newspapers were all single minded liberal trash group think. It was mighty “extremist” – hateful and impolite – to tell Liberals of the “high moral ground” to shove their elitism, ideology and assumptions. It was racist to speak out against liberalism’s injustice rehabilitation policy where violent criminals faced little to no punishment and victims were never considered. It was sexist to question liberalism’s man-hating doctrines about women. The newspapers very rarely published politically incorrect challenges to liberalism’s social, political and economic doctrines. It was racist to question open border/illegal immigration policies.

Republicans were always “racist and sexist” rich people and Democrats (limo liberals) were always for the “little guy” (as long as he was not white male or a Christian). Christians were dirt and were forbidden any public voice in the political arena. Abortion was the removal of mere tissue; fetus and it’s development was not mentioned. Everyone had civil rights except for white males and everyone had religious freedom except for non-liberation theology (the revised Christianity the communists permit) Christians.

Wealth transfer from the American people to the Liberals in government was always “good for the poor.” No one ever mentioned how much Liberals skimmed off for themselves – how little actually got to the poor and how not being poor became being “rich” for never ending taxation purposes.

Since the l960′s liberals have progressed to become hard left and since then there has not been rational and polite debate in society. The post-60′s Liberals tolerate no social differences nor do they tolerate the constitutional rights of their cultural and thought enemies. The difference between now and then is free speech came about through the interent and Liberals had no way to punish nor control the speech of their opposition.

We never want to give the left the tool of harassing their polticial enemies on the internet the way they do in the arts, schools, Universities and newspapers.

That sort of compartmentalization is one of the reasons politics has become so ferociously partisan. On the Internet, people have broken up into small, like-minded groups where they have minimal contact with people who disagree with them. As a result, there is little pressure to show respect for the opinions of people who see the world differently — since those people are, for the most part, not present. It means that facts that run contrary to their ideology will tend to be viewed with suspicion at best and will be totally ignored at worst, thereby creating groupthink on a titanic scale.

Physician, heal thyself! Anyone who has read through the comment section of your own blog, Right Wing News, will note that you have some truly nasty commenters. You can’t even police your own blog, John.

The on-line left has, in my experience and that of many others, been much harsher, nastier, uncouth and generally ill-behaved than the right. The comments sections of blogs offer a pretty good look at this.

I understand that your personal exposure, and that of others here, has been to harsh, nasty, uncouth verbiage from the left. However, your personal exposure and that of your peers does not necessarily represent the typical experience. You will find similar behavior from all parts of the political spectrum. You also might consider that the seven dirty words are now part of the popular vocabulary, and might not be used for the same effect online that they might be in person. It would be an interesting topic to study, but that hasn’t really been seriously attempted AFAIK.

@33. John Moore:

However, there are plenty of other echo chambers that predate the net. The urban left culture relied more on the easy communications in urbania, and has been around a long time.
…
The internet, on the other hand, also allows those who had no easy way to communicate – such as a lot of red-state people – to form communities of thought. Some of these will get whacky, but others will fill important roles.

It makes one wonder at the organization of the Revolution. Today we are at the apex of a rapid ascent in speed and breadth of communication. Before internet, TV, radio, telephone, and the postal service, communicating was a much more cumbersome and time consuming process. Benjamin Franklin’s importance is directly tied to the difficulties of communication, and their solution. Inevitably partisans will segregate and congregate accordingly.

The internet is certainly changing things, but I think the verdict is still out about whether it leads to more divisiveness or the opposite.

I have a hard time believing that the author of this opinion piece actually takes his own thoughts on the matter seriously. Surely he must think more deeply than this? Surely he has observed the vast coarsening that was taking place several decades ahead of the advent of the worldwide web?

Actually, I have some tolerance for vulgarity. Occasionally, I have succumbed to it – when it can effectively be appropriate to the context and best captures the feelings that need to be expressed. Most of the time, vulgarity has little persuasive effect and can even harm the argument. However, what does indeed do great harm to our public discourse is that quality of “snarkiness” that I have seen an abundance of coming from those progressives who consider themselves our “betters.” It conveys an utter contempt for any viewpoint that falls outside of the bounds of ideological orthodoxy. Not to be confused with sarcasm, which has its own place in discourse. It certainly is not as refined as satire.

Inspired by the link at #20, I did a quick google search on some representative sites. I figured a comparison of the search results for the term “sex” with the pejorative describing the same act would be interesting. Not scientific at all.

I set the ratio up for at a glance reading. Higher number is indicative of higher profanity level. I find it interesting that they break into neat categories. HuffPost and FreeRepublic are clearly pretty clean. DailyKos and Drudge obviously not so much. PJM comes in a little dirtier than HuffPost, but much cleaner than Google.

The surprising outlier was LittleGF. I’ve not poked my head in over there, but I suspect the invective would be considerable based on what my (admittedly cursory) search revealed. I’m sure there are flaws in my methodology, but until a more substantial investigation is completed, I’m thinking there is little reason to suspect that profanity is a partisan issue.

Peace.

DS

PS – All data collected this evening using google sitesearch and alexa.

@31. David S: - Your assertion that there is more coarseness, vitriol, rudeness, crudeness …
You were obviously too lazy to follow the link to the post that discusses this observation – not an assertion – otherwise you might have learned something, i.e., that it’s based on actual measurements.

- You note that the Army helped you develop your cursing ability, while at the same time stereotyping those who use profanity as “leftist”. Note the cognitive dissonance. The Army is hardly a bastion of leftists.
You’ve obviously never served your country, or you’d know that Basic Combat Training is a bastion of (barely) adult adolescents with uncontrollable potty mouths. The cognitive dissonance you’re experiencing is based on your own erroneous assumptions and your failure to comprehend simple prose.

- If you would stop stereotyping the left as a bunch of foul-mouthed adolescents, and take some time to understand why their policy positions are favored by the majority of Americans, you might not need to use so many curse words in your own life.
You’ve obviously paid no attention to what I’ve actually written here, or elsewhere.

First, I don’t use many curse words at all (“included” is past tense, Zippy – look it up).

Second, I understand perfectly well how a majority of Americans have been duped into making self-destructive political decisions; and third, unlike you, I was actually paying attention in Logic 101, and remember that Appeal to the Majority is a subjectivist fallacy.

Fourth, clinical evidence demonstrates – in all cultures, not just America – that the left’s “policy positions” *cough* are grounded in a value system that derives from an incomplete set of intuitive ethics, i.e., moral adolescence.

And fifth, I don’t stereotype the left – the left’s penchant for identity politics does that perfectly well all on its own.

You were obviously too lazy to follow the link to the post that discusses this observation – not an assertion – otherwise you might have learned something, i.e., that it’s based on actual measurements.

Wrong. The measurements you used were less scientific than my own brief survey above @46. Your link inspired me to do a little googling of my own – and I found that the right wing blogs can be vulgar indeed. At least I included info on the popularity of the site, and some indication of how “on-topic” the vulgarity might be. Given the complete lack of any such measures at the link you cited, I’m inclined to say that I learned something about the veracity of your “actual measurements”.

You’ve obviously never served your country, or you’d know that Basic Combat Training is a bastion of (barely) adult adolescents with uncontrollable potty mouths.

I never had any doubt.

You’ve obviously paid no attention to what I’ve actually written here, or elsewhere.

On the contrary. I’ve paid attention enough to know how you try to filter your world. Your blog is quite revealing.

Second, I understand perfectly well how a majority of Americans have been duped into making self-destructive political decisions

I’m sure you do. I loved your blog post on the AOL poll from August last year. Priceless. I also noticed you’ve been watching LGF for quite some time. You’ll note above that LGF appears to be one of the more vulgar right wing sites. Joy.

third, unlike you, I was actually paying attention in Logic 101, and remember that Appeal to the Majority is a subjectivist fallacy.

I was mostly talking about our political process, and your willful ignorance thereof. Most of your fellow citizens are at least slightly better informed. Carry on.

Fourth, clinical evidence demonstrates – in all cultures, not just America – that the left’s “policy positions” *cough* are grounded in a value system that derives from an incomplete set of intuitive ethics, i.e., moral adolescence.

Now this is a novel argument. Care to elaborate on what “clinical evidence” you feel demonstrates that the left derives values from an incomplete set of ethics (keeping in mind the lack of ethics demonstrated by the right)? From what I see, the left’s policy positions are substantially vindicated by any serious inquiry into the material circumstances of the world.

And fifth, I don’t stereotype the left – the left’s penchant for identity politics does that perfectly well all on its own.

Keep telling yourself that you are a victim, and so you will remain. You boldly stereotype the left as a bunch of morally adolescent, self-destructive, foul-mouthed, irrational idealogues. And you wonder why folks don’t respond well? Take responsibility for yourself. Nobody made you do it.

You are a great example of many of the kinds of cultural damage the author notes. Well played.

You just described academia. An insular disrespectful place wher only like minded people congregate. You are onto something here, but miss some larger points. If we still had a classical liberal culture rather than a postmodern leftist one things wouldn’t be so bad, because our cultural foundations would be strong enough to foster the things you lament are missing. There are much bigger issues than the Internet.

I love how John Hawkins and all the fascist, authority-worshiping freaks congregate here in unison, hoping to stave off the anarchical Zeitgeist of raw free will and thought. Reminiscent of the Hitler youth. It’s funny because men are supposed to be hunter-gatherers and explore. Yet the conservatives here seem more feminine in persuasion, as if they are hoarding some great treasure, like Golem harboring the Ring of Power. Likely it comes down to the reality that Republicans are mostly homophobic, which studies now correlate with closet homosexuality.

1) Corporations do not run everything. If they did they would do something about those high corporate tax rates that the government forces them to pay. They would do away with the burdensome and unnecessary government regulations that so hamper them from the decent and noble goals of earning their own way and add value to their shareholders. Why are we debating a trillion dollar rip off of the taxpayer so the Democrats can buy votes if “Corporations ran everything”? This is a lie made up by the “postmodern left”, and you repeat it unthinkingly and uncritically. This lack of critical thinking on your part is no doubt in no samll way due to a deficient education given to you by the “postmodern left” through the public school system.

2) Churches are non-profits. All non-profits get the same sort of breaks. The Chicago Symphony gets the same sort of tax break. So does the Council for Foreign Relations. In fact a great of the larger nonprofits are NOG’s with decided post modern leftist organization. In size, influence and forgiven tax revenue, these organization far out match a small neighborhood church. The twist is, that though postmodern leftism surely counts as a religious faith by and considered opinion, only churches are threaten with the withdrawal of their status when they in any way involve themselves with political issues, discourse or activism. Excluded for this tyranny, of course, are Black churches used by Democrats for political purposes. The postmodern leftist non-profits engage in politics nonstop for this is what they were created for. Clearly then, the postmodern leftist nonprift organizations are favored in law and practice over “churches”. So this “opinion” of yours is also incorrect and the logic behind it is invalid. This propaganda was also put in your mouth by the post modern left, and this too your repeat with out critical thought, again for the same reasons you failed to analize the leftist slander about American corporations.

3) You completely misuse the term “schizophrenia”. It is a mental disorder, not a description of faulty arguments, logical errors or invalid or immoral rhetorical techniques. Furthermore, a strong case could be made that you are projecting your mental problems onto other people. That this malady may just be a mild form of personality disorder is nether here nor there. This sort of thing is a hallmark of the postmodern left.

This your comments themselves, the fact that you think that your comments has any rationality or understanding in it, and the odd superstitious and supercilious tone in presenting it, are all clear, though minor, manifestations of just the what SK8 Punk is talking about. Too funny.

Fora sample of truly creative and vitriolic politics that led to serious fears of the United States falling into a civil war, I suggest reading some of the articles and pamphlets published during the Election of 1800 (Adams/Jefferson), or the material attacking Andrew Jackson. Civil political society was anything but in certain locations and times. While the Internet has made anonymous vitriol easier to spew, the practice has a long and rich tradition in the US. And abroad (Hogarth’s etchings and the British political cartoons attacking the Prime Minister during the American Revolution, for example).
And I use a nom de cyber because I could torpedo my career if my (private, personal) politics were to become known.

Mike, let’s follow the logic all the way through… if everyone worked at a small business or for the US government, that still would not be a “postmodern leftist” society. At best that would be a “petit bourgeois” society, or possibly a “liberal” society.

Sorry to harsh the paranoia buzz.

Besides which, I seriously doubt the claim that 75% of the US public works at small businesses or for the government. The majority of the people I know work for corporate entities.

I wrote about this topic awhile ago, though I had a quite different take on the subject. In “In Praise of Incivility” I argued that anonymity wasn’t really the problem, as people will gladly sign their name to examples of their bad behavior.

Granted, gutless trolls make no positive contribution to society…but that is pretty obvious isn’t it?

And I use a nom de cyber because I could torpedo my career if my (private, personal) politics were to become known.

Exactly. Political polarization is nothing new. Neither is anonymity.

The real question is, how will the US public adjust to this harsher reality, and what policies will they push for? Will they stay with the corporate feeding frenzy of the past thirty years, or will they push for something healthier?

I am 56 and feel very blessed to have so MUCH information, literally at my fingertips. Many a dish I’ve been cooking in the kitchen, only to find out I couldn’t remember a key ingredient and fled to the computer and in a blink, had my answer. I can read books that I might not otherwise have had time to go sit in a library. I’ve accessed the greatest arts and music. The Internet has been an education process in and off itself. Those are all very GOOD things. I’m like the person above who said “the Internet isn’t the problem, the problem is the people using it. Sadly, this is so. Luckily, I’ve formed no addictions, don’t use it unethically, immorally or in any purpose to hurt another, but there are many, many out there who do. I do worry about the kids, but not that they have computers……..more because the parents aren’t watching their use. I feel bad for the wife or husband whose spouse has become addicted to porn through the use of the computer. But again, if it wasn’t the Internet, it would probably be something else for those people.
The one thing I would encourage everyone to do though, it STOP making email the only way you communicate with PEOPLE. Go back to writing a hand-written card, making a phone call to check on that special friend. Online shopping has encouraged people to NOT want to get out and about! While convenient, it is yet another way of instantly gratifying ourself and giving ourself great excuses as to why we don’t actually have to put our bodies (not just our fingers) in motion anymore.
Just as the fellow talked about drivers above and just as we should do everything in moderation and with a degree of discipline and responsibility, the Internet is no exception. Will that happen? No, of course not. Just like drunk-drivers will always be on our freeways and highways and guns will never be used simply for the sport of hunting, ever again.
So! Let those of us out here who love it, use it wisely and ARE responsible, keep encouraging those who are not.

I have a suggestion and I’m not sure why websites have not been keen to this. There is a way to remove anonimity without showing personal information – assign a non-personally identifiable ID to a person posting on web forums. For example, as I post this comment, the ISP knows my IP address and probably even MAC address. Now, since those are personally identifiable, simply pair a non-intelligent ID to my profile and now you can tell if I’m the blog comment spammer/troll. Even if I change registered IDs, the system can still detect my unique location and know who I am and with logic assign the same non-personal ID back to me. This is entirely possible. One could even extend this and add semi-identifiable info like state or country. Think of the possibilities.

Okay, as a member of this so-called MTV generation *I prefer iGeneration but whatever*, I find it offensie for it to be said that we can’t pay attention to anything. There’s the possibility that we can’t, but this isn’t necessarily our fault. The Baby Boomers made it okay to spend hours upon hours watching television, thus desensitizing them first. Then they went and constructed the internet, saying it would be fine because hardy har har, who was going to actually spend time sitting in front or a box for hours on end, desensitizing themselves from the real world?

Ironic, hm?

We didn’t choose to be the generation that can’t pay attention. People decades before us made that decision in an effort to make higher profits in a commerialized world. Do you honestly think we as toddlers put ourselves before the MTV and watched, immersing ourselves into it? No, our parents put us in front of the televisions, thus setting the example that is was all right to do something like that.

There is also the idea which I would like to point out that excuse me, but there are a lot of people in the “MTV generation” who can pay attention a whole lot better due to the fact that we try as hard as we can to pick out the main idea of something. Do you know how hard it is to navigate the internet without looking at ads and wanting to click on them? It’s a skill to be able to ignore everything but the necessary information. If I ever sent my parent online to look for something, chances are they’re going to click on something and end up getting scammed. It’s vital to only pay attention to what’s supremely important on the internet.

Finally, one last thought. I agree with Delia who said that rude people will always be rude. If you’ve ever cracked open a newspaper to the editorial section, you’ll find just as rude people who use their opinion as matter-of-fact truth. It’s the same thing, only not as widespread. People who are rude would have found ways to be ignorant with or without the internet.

The internet kind of can’t be rewound, so it was inevitable that at some point it would bring out the worst (and sometimes best) in people.

On a more sinister note, the Internet allows misfits, sexual deviants, and sociopaths to form communities outside the mainstream where they can reinforce each others’ values. Instead of being a weirdo or loner that society may be able to cajole back towards normalcy through negative social reinforcement,

Or, vice versa,

How is it in that bubble of yours, anyhow?

everyone from pedophiles and conspiracy theorists to hackers and “I did it for the lulz” trolls can meet up with hundreds of like-minded souls on the net who tell them what they’re doing isn’t abnormal; to the contrary, it’s great!

Typewriter_King must live in a different universe. The one he describes bears no resemblance to the one I live in. To assert that the internet does not mainstream pornography or that the attention span of Americans is no shorter now than it was in Lincoln’s time may be a warning sign: there’s something wrong with Typewriter_King’s mind. Pornography used to be something one had to seek out in a public way, entering an outlet that was clearly a porn shop, and except for those in the largest cities most carried only a tiny percentage of what’s readily and anonymously accessible in the world’s largest porn shop online — most carried little or nothing from the plethora of perversions available online, where it is true that communities of such people quickly form. And anyone who doesn’t think Americans now have a shorter attention span than before need only locate a mass market magazine from the 1960s — Esquire, say — in which essays will continue for page after page of nothing but text, and compare it to the magazine produced today under the same name: rarely does today’s Esquire (which is typical) have much continuous text on a single page; mostly there is a small paragraph or two or three broken up by photos or illustrations. Unfortunately, the kind of thought developed by people who educate themselves through reading (as opposed to those who do so via television) produces wisdom and judgment necessary for a civil society to exist.

There’s nothing even vaguely “scientific” about your fake survey. You’ve changed from the criteria of the original measurements cited and provided nothing rational (let alone compelling) to demonstrate why those criteria are more accurate. You failed to repeat the original experiment and get different results. So you wasted your time and proved nothing. Fail #5 for you.

A more substantial investigation than your silly list of numbers was completed, and it’s already been linked up above. Fail #6 for you.

- You’ll note above that LGF appears to be one of the more vulgar right wing sites.
That tidbit is already clearly enumerated in the original survey, Zippy. Now try looking for a fact everyone else doesn’t already know AND a more comprehensive study based on the same criteria that changes the profanity ratio to something other than 41-to-1.

I was mostly talking about our political process, …
You obviously have no idea WHAT you were talking about. You specifically cited the “majority” as validation of leftist ideology, quote: “… [leftist] policy positions are favored by the majority of Americans…”. That’s a subjectivist fallacy, Zippy.

Care to elaborate on what “clinical evidence” …
For someone who claims that my blog is so “revealing”, you obviously haven’t read much of it. Filtering your world, no doubt.

I’ve referred to the Adolescent Left in a number of posts here, as well as at my site. Those posts typically link to the clinical studies that demonstrate – in every culture tested – that a leftist value system derives from an incomplete set of intuitive ethics. You’re free to go there, peruse and find it for yourself. In fact, I’ve made it trivially easy for you to locate. Plus, while searching you might actually learn something – certainly more than you learned in Logic 101.

You know, if you want to argue that the internet has made American politics “considerably ruder, cruder, and more paranoid than it used to be,” you’d do well to find a better totem of our lost virtues than the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates. Leave aside the obvious fact that the major subject of their argument — the question of whether to permit the extension of slavery into the territories — led to the bloody Civil War. And leave aside the obvious fact that the debates came at the tail end of a decade constipated with paranoia — from rumors of vast papist conspiracies, to racist yodeling about the “heathen Chinee,” to sectional beliefs that abolitionists or the Slave Power were conspiring against liberty itself. And while you’re at it, forget the other unpleasantness of the 1850s — the massacres in Kansas, or the bludgeoning of a US Senator at his own desk, or the national frenzy over John Brown.

While you’re forgetting all that, just remember that from August to October 1858, Stephen Douglas and his surrogates waddled about the state of Illinois, arguing that Abraham Lincoln opposed the extension of slavery because he wanted to marry a black woman.

But the debates were long, so Americans must have been classier back then.

This is kind of ironic coming from someone who recently wrote not one, but two columns titled “You Suck”, both of which were, of course, the very picture of civility. Certainly as civil as starting off with “you suck” ever can be.

I believe the Internet, like almost all technology, has negatives as well as positives. The idea that technological progress is always good is as incorrect as thinking technological progress is always bad.

In the case of the internet, I think the positives far exceed the negatives. Overall, I think it would be hard to argue that the Internet has had a net negative effect on the human condition. I like your post though for at least acknowledging that technology has negative effects, without sounding like a neo-Luddite/Unabomber type.

I have to fault you though on your nostalgic feelings for an era that never occured. I know it’s nice to imagine the past as old, bearded, white men sitting around talking politely to each other, while their children sit in rapt attention hanging on their elders’ stories no matter how boring or how many times they’ve heard them before. The truth is, humans don’t have long attention spans. We’ve only been doing the civilization thing for maybe 30,000 years and the parts of the world that were the first to “civilize”, mainly Mesopotamia and the Mid East, are some of the least civil today. In the vast amount of time before that, nature molded within us a balance between attention and action. Early people that were too attentive were selected out probably because they were missing out on other opportunities and people that didn’t think enough were probably selected out because they were falling in holes or running into traps they should have noticed by being more attentive. Nature found a balance that continues to linger today because our society is changing much more rapidly than our continuing evolution can keep up with.

Also, what about Charles Sumner being beat in the Senate chamber? How about the myriad number of political assasinations from King Tut down through our own Presidents? Ever watch the House of Commons late at night on CSpan? When has political discourse ever been civil? Our political culture needs a little less polish and a lot more honesty. I think the Internet has helped accomplish that for all its other faults.

The Internet is not the source of short attention spans nor rude behavior. You ask if we will be able to put this genie back in the bottle but the genie was never in the bottle. And every attempt to bottle the human nature genie or fundamentally change what we are, ends in disaster. Best to accept what we are, even the bad parts, ask why we are that way, then set up systems that best strike a balance between what we are as humans and what we need to be for the good of others/society. Or answer if the “good of society” is worth the compromises we make as human beings.

You know, if you want to argue that the internet has made American politics “considerably ruder, cruder, and more paranoid than it used to be,” you’d do well to find a better totem of our lost virtues than the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates. Leave aside the obvious fact that the major subject of their argument — the question of whether to permit the extension of slavery into the territories — led to the bloody Civil War. And leave aside the obvious fact that the debates came at the tail end of a decade constipated with paranoia — from rumors of vast papist conspiracies, to racist yodeling about the “heathen Chinee,” to sectional beliefs that abolitionists or the Slave Power were conspiring against liberty itself. And while you’re at it, forget the other unpleasantness of the 1850s — the massacres in Kansas, or the bludgeoning of a US Senator at his own desk, or the national frenzy over John Brown.

While you’re forgetting all that, just remember that from August to October 1858, Stephen Douglas and his surrogates waddled about the state of Illinois, arguing that Abraham Lincoln opposed the extension of slavery because he wanted to marry a black woman.

But the debates were long, so Americans must have been classier back then.

The survey you cite above has no data on the popularity of the websites, and no data for a control word to reference. It means nothing. There is no conceivable way you could prove anything about vulgarity and partisanship with it. If you want to cite a survey as authoritative, at least use something that resembles intellectual honesty. The “survey” you cite is just nonsense, and you know it.

Cherry-picking a site like LGF which is known to be vulgar – based on the original survey data I linked to – is intellectually dishonest.

Au contraire. The survey data you linked to did not calibrate for the size or content of the site. My short survey provides a way of checking the relative level of vulgarity for the site, as well as looking at the raw data, and comparing the popularity of the sites. LGF was #12 out of 22 in rank on your survey – exactly in the middle. No bias at all because I had never visited the site. LGF, based on the survey you cite, would not appear to be especially vulgar.

If I was cherry-picking, I would have used a site from the survey with a higher count. If anything, my choice was biased against the left, as I surveyed the most vulgar left wing sites on the list, and compared them with the middle of the pack on the right by your survey.

I have simplified the experiment and improved upon it for the sake of argument. There is no reason to suppose that my method is less accurate than the one you used, and in fact plenty of reasons to think it superior. I have created an experiment that you can repeat, and compare results easily from site to site.

Now try looking for a fact everyone else doesn’t already know AND a more comprehensive study based on the same criteria that changes the profanity ratio to something other than 41-to-1.

Given the obvious lack of criteria, why exactly would I repeat the meaningless survey you cite? Your “profanity ratio” means zilch because you don’t even know what you are comparing without additional data.

For someone who claims that my blog is so “revealing”, you obviously haven’t read much of it. Filtering your world, no doubt.

Fair enough. That was your shot to share your best evidence. I’ll let Norm take it from here. Anybody who buys your “Intuitive Ethics” line won’t check facts anyway.

Thus, secularists defer to the authority of reason while theocrats defer to the authority of bibles and priests with pretensions toward reason.

Really, your idea about “moral adolescence” is somewhat interesting, but it looks to me like the right-leaning folks are more self-righteous. Thanks for an entertaining look into the nonsense that fills a goy with joy.

@78. David S: The survey you cite above has no data on the popularity of the websites, …
Wrong, Zippy. You obviously never actually read the post at the link, you just scanned the table looking for the most vulgar conservative site. Go back and read the whole thing (as Glenn says), wherein you will find the following:

… this is what I found, using what I deemed — through a mix of TTLB and 2006′s Weblog Award lists — to be the 18 biggest Lefty blogs, and 22 biggest Righty blogs. (Not counting this one. :)) I couldn’t account for the 6-month time period, and I even gave the Lefty blogs a 4 blog advantage. But it didn’t make much of a difference.

[emph. added, for Zippy]

- The survey data you linked to did not calibrate for the size or content of the site.
No reason to. Given the absolute numbers found and the overwhelming ratio discovered, “calibration” is irrelevant, Zippy. In order for your irrelevant little notion to even begin to matter, leftist sites would have to be over FORTY TIMES larger/more popular than the conservative ones listed. If you think that’s the reality, then you really should cut back on the meth-and-O’kool-aid cocktails.

- I have simplified the experiment and improved upon it for the sake of argument.
You looked at a completely different metric because it tells you what you want to hear, Zippy. You have failed, utterly, to show how that metric has validity OR any relevance to the topic at hand.

- I’ll let Norm take it from here.
LOL. Big mistake, Zippy. You really should have read my post. In the interests of intellectual honesty and thoroughness, I acknowledged and debunked Norm’s insipid attempt to change the rules a long time ago… not that very much effort was required to do that. I’ll give you the full-strength version…

Normie’s specious proposal suffers from precisely the condition Haidt’s data shows – in every culture tested. Like you, he wants to use criteria that will be more “fair” to someone who thinks like him. He makes this claim based solely on his opinion, not any relevant data. In your frenzy to copy-and-paste a bunch of empty glurge you clearly don’t comprehend, you managed to miss the two most damning elements of Normie’s failed proposal:

I object to the claim that religious conservatives use all five moral foundations, but liberals only two.

I think these new polar categories are needed to be fair to liberals.

[emph. added, again, for Zippy]

First, Haidt’s work wasn’t based on data collected solely from religious conservatives. If Normie (or you) had bothered to read Haidt’s seminal work on this topic, he (and you) would have noticed, in fact, that Haidt clearly recognizes religious conservatives as being a subset of all the self-described conservatives that were part of his group’s research.

Normie’s complete ignorance of theocratic philosophy and his abject atheism distort his perception and scramble his reason, projecting a completely erroneous version of Haidt’s thesis onto the otherwise blank screen in his head. That’s the straw man his proposal tries to knock down. This provides some real comic relief, as his specious proposal is based on the notion that liberals (e.g., “secularists”) are “more rational” than conservatives (in his mind: “theocrats”). Heh. Anyway, the combination sends Normie off on a wild goose chase firmly grounded in irrelevant thesis. And you blindly followed because you slept through Logic 101. More fail for you.

Second, the irony here is truly comic. He “thinks“? “Fair to liberals“?? This is very, very funny stuff. One of Haidt’s fundamental observations is that self-described liberals are far more concerned with “fairness” than any other area of intuitive ethics. Normie has made Haidt’s point perfectly. As you have made mine.

Do get back to us when Normie finally convinces some poor slob to take him up on his lame request that someone else do his heavy lifting for him, m’kay? To date he hasn’t produced any actual data that supports his tedious sophistry even the slightest little bit.

LOL. The internet is the greatest forum for the freedom of speech! Republicans found it out too late, and are playing catch up-but what they are realizing is that they can’t handle scrutiny, and the truth.

“Today, only 10% of people on the net will even watch an entertaining five-minute video all the way through. That’s problematic for our society because there are quite a few issues that simply cannot be adequately boiled down to a single slogan or sentence.”

- The survey data you linked to did not calibrate for the size or content of the site.
No reason to. Given the absolute numbers found and the overwhelming ratio discovered, “calibration” is irrelevant, Zippy. In order for your irrelevant little notion to even begin to matter, leftist sites would have to be over FORTY TIMES larger/more popular than the conservative ones listed. If you think that’s the reality, then you really should cut back on the meth-and-O’kool-aid cocktails.

You contradict yourself. You say there is “no reason” to calibrate results for the size of the site, and then acknowledge that this would matter if the leftist sites were significantly larger/more popular than the conservative ones. Without data to support your assertion that these two samples contain similarly sized sites, there is no conclusion to be drawn except that the survey was flawed from the outset. Much like your premise that the left is more vulgar than the right.

- I have simplified the experiment and improved upon it for the sake of argument.
You looked at a completely different metric because it tells you what you want to hear, Zippy. You have failed, utterly, to show how that metric has validity OR any relevance to the topic at hand.

I looked at a different metric because I was curious what it would reveal. You keep asserting that I designed my survey to be biased toward a particular viewpoint- but that is simply false. You have no evidence to support your aspersions, and you fail to reflect on the real problems with your own nonsense “evidence”. Even if your assertion were true, and I had cherry-picked data to support my assertion, it would still be a more informative survey than the one you linked to.

- I’ll let Norm take it from here.
LOL. Big mistake, Zippy. You really should have read my post. In the interests of intellectual honesty and thoroughness, I acknowledged and debunked Norm’s insipid attempt to change the rules a long time ago… not that very much effort was required to do that. I’ll give you the full-strength version…

I’ll just cut to the chase. The three “intuitive moral values” that liberals score low on are Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity – exactly the misguided “values” that enable racism, religious hatred, totalitarianism, and discrimination by the theocratic.

The corresponding liberal values of Inclusion, Questioning Authority, and Rights/Secular Freedom are suspiciously similar to the founding moral values of our nation. The USA is really a secular nation by design, and Haidt’s analysis only confirms that conservatives cannot provide a rational basis for their moral condemnation of others. Dumbfounding was the term.

You have also provided no reason to believe that intuitive ethics are in any way superior to deliberative ethics. You are an endless source of bunk for my debunking pleasure. Please keep up the great sophistry. We live in a republic, and republican ethics are the basis of our society – not biblically inspired intuition.

I know ,don’t feed the trolls, but Rottenwang needs addressing. Dr. Hansen is an erudite published author whose college professorship is documented. Rottie is a self proclaimed teacher who probably really spits on windshields in the Bowery and asks for change for cleaning the glass. Proving Hawkins thesis, Rottenbreath!

I have no argument with the premise that a lot of people today are ill-mannered, badly educated jerks. I disagree with the conclusion that people in the past were not.

We see the warts on society’s face because we’re up close, and because we’re flooded with information. Nearly all of the illiterate and profane comments of the past were never recorded and lost to history–now they’re preserved digitally for posterity.

Americans are perhaps the most kind, well-mannered people on the planet. That’s just not from my personal experiences, but from worldwide opinion polls from travel industry. If you want rude, go to the UK. Something is seriously wrong with their society.

“81. ACJ: LOL. The internet is the greatest forum for the freedom of speech! Republicans found it out too late, and are playing catch up-but what they are realizing is that they can’t handle scrutiny, and the truth.”

Yes, we’ll see how much “truth” you leftists can handle when you try to introduce the “Fairness Doctrine” to shut up your critics.
BTW, when did “Democrats” claim all the spoils from technolgy? The Internet was invented by the U.S. military, hardly a haven for Democrats. What do you have to say about that?

@85. David S: - You say there is “no reason” to calibrate results for the size of the site, …
No. You claim that there is a reason to require “calibration”. I’ve simply demonstrated that you haven’t provided sufficient rationale for that claim. That is, in order to bring the results into any serious question based on the numbers, the leftist sites used would have to have been OVER FORTY TIMES LARGER/MORE POPULAR than fewer conservative ones. I know you’re very strongly emotionally invested in being part of the almighty Majority, but even you must accept that such a ratio is a ludicrous notion on its face.

Still, if you’re delusional enough to claim such a ratio – or anything close to it – simply produce some data and we’ll talk. Prove “calibration” matters at all. Until then, there’s no contradiction in recognizing that the existing survey is the best done so far, based as it is on a collection of the most popular sites drawn from both domains – with an unfair advantage given to the left, to boot. Your “calibration” notion is just a lame, troll tactic intended to obfuscate the issue, and you well know it.

- The three “intuitive moral values” that liberals score low on are Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity – exactly the misguided “values” that enable racism, religious hatred, totalitarianism, and discrimination by the theocratic.
Another bad move, Zippy. Haidt – notably a self-described liberal himself – has already noted in several venues that leftists typically make this exact erroneous assessment. Your delusion is perfectly in line with your fellow moral adolescents. I can also help you here by pointing out that leftist Communism and National Socialism were perfectly totalitarian; the left depends almost entirely on racism to further a social engineering agenda driven by class- and race-baiting tactics; religious hatred is regularly exhibited by manic atheists and hysterical leftist global warming disciples.

You really should spend some time actually trying to understand these ideas, Zippy. Instead of borrowing others’ opinions and pretending you understand them, put out some modicum of effort, do what Haidt did and generate some peer-reviewed research so at least Normie can pretend to support his specious proposal. He’s apparently too lazy. Until then, I strongly recommend a long nap.

- The USA is really a secular nation by design, …
Nope. A direct acknowledgment of ‘their Creator‘ is enshrined in America’s founding documents. This premise acts as the foundation on which our Constitutionally-limited government is based, as well as the justification by which our Constitutional – inalienable – rights are recognized (as opposed to granted). The notion of a Creator is anything but “secular”. Major fail for you.

- … Haidt’s analysis only confirms that conservatives cannot provide a rational basis for …
Nope. Maybe you should actually try reading his work. Here’s a shortcut you can try in the meantime: go watch Haidt’s TED talk. His entire thesis is that the fully mature moral mind inherent in conservative thought is vital to achieve a balance in social policy. He is very clearly Speaking Truth to Adolescence. Maybe you should listen.

- … republican ethics are the basis of our society – not biblically inspired intuition.
The notion of ‘their Creator‘ notwithstanding, right? Heh. Heheh. And with this we see that you have blindly dragged yourself down the same irrelevant thesis path Normie pursues, as previously demonstrated. Enjoy the trip. Don’t let the dead end hit you in the nose when you get there.

Sheila, I didn’t say that democrats invented the internet, I just said that the republicans just discovered it. Republicans dance like the “Wack a Mole” and they wear stretch pants at buffets. They get Alzhiemers and arthritis and such. They don’t beleive in evolution so why should they use the internet. How savy are you guys anyway? You wear white shoes, and slick back hair, try to network at cocktail parties. You think dinosaurs come in plastic bags at the dollar store.
Republicans right now are are embracing McCains words as if the old stuff will get us out of this catastophy;the same stuff (thinking) that got us into this is mess in the first place. OLD OLD OLD. GOP stands for Grumpy OLd People.

Sheila, I didn’t say that democrats invented the Internet; I just said that the republicans just discovered it. Republicans dance like the “Wack a Mole” and they wear stretch pants at buffets. They get Alzheimer’s and arthritis and such. They don’t believe in evolution so why should they use the Internet. How savvy are you guys anyway? You wear white shoes, and slick back hair; try to network at cocktail parties. You think dinosaur’s come in plastic bags at the dollar store.
Republicans right now are are embracing McCains words as if the old stuff will get us out of this catastophy; the same stuff (thinking) that got us into this is mess in the first place. OLD OLD OLD. GOP stands for Grumpy OLd People.

The study you cite is ludicrous on its face. I already did “produce some data”, showing that calibration matters – if you were paying attention, you would have noticed that Alexa rank and number of “hits” for the target words were correlated. Proving my point that without calibration, you have no meaningful data. And you go on assuming that it is impossible for the leftist sites to be forty times larger, with no evidence at all for your position. What more rationale do you need to justify calibration?

FYI, the existing survey is not the best done so far, because it is based on non-empirical criteria. The lists are essentially arbitrary choices of sites from the left and right. Without evidence that these sites are comparable, the survey is meaningless. My survey, brief as it is, is already a better survey because the methodology includes a basis for normalizing the results. I’m in no mood right now to explain to you why calling my survey “a troll tactic” only proves that in this case, the right is more vulgar than the left. There is no obfuscation here save your own.

You have provided no reason that my assessment of the intuitive values Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity is erroneous. In fact, you have reinforced my point by claiming that Communism and Nazism are leftist, when in reality they are totalitarian systems that depend on the very “intuitive morality” that you claim makes the right “morally mature”. The left is, according to this system, more concerned with fairness. Your claim that the left depends on class and race -baiting, and that religious hatred is associated with the left is hilarious. Most of the religious hatred in our society is generated by ostensibly Christian sources – to claim otherwise is to admit that you are a moron.

Hitler and Stalin demanded “loyalty”, expected their “authority” to be “respected” and argued for the “purity” of their respective causes. Yet somehow you conclude that these are leftist regimes, despite their utter reliance on the “intuitive ethics” most dear to the right. That’s loony. Totalitarianism is dependent on the precise moral intuitions most associated with theocrats.

The recognition of a “Creator” in our founding documents is found only in the Declaration of Independence – no such reference can be found in the legal documents that form the basis of our government. Even so, there is no reason to suggest that this “Creator” is anything more than a first cause, or has anything to do with the design of our nation. The vision of our founders was no so narrow as you suggest – hence the establishment clause, which really should make the secular nature of the USA clear. If you can’t understand the “wall of separation”, there is little I can do for you. Religion has nothing to do with the notion of a “Creator” in the Declaration – it is a philosophical document, not a religious one.

Yes, Haidt confirms that conservative “moral intuition” is characterized by “dumbfounding” moments, where a conclusion is reached without any logical antecedent. Obviously something you are adept at.

@95. David S: The study you cite is ludicrous on its face.
Your opinion. Only. Suitable for parakeet cage lining based on what you’ve presented so far.

- I already did “produce some data”, …
Nope. Nothing relevant to the source I originally linked. You made up your own irrelevant metric – otherwise know as deflection – and want to use that to obfuscate the issue. Repeating your assertion over and over doesn’t make it valid. But that’s what trolls like you do, Zippy. I guess it can’t be helped.

- You have provided no reason that my assessment of the intuitive values Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity is erroneous.
First, it’s not your assessment. You stole it from someone else without even understanding what it means. Second, you don’t seem to comprehend basic logic, which doesn’t bode well for a someone who claims to have a philosophy degree: you haven’t provided any compelling rationale, much less any empirical data, to support your silly notion. And on top of that, your copy/pasted drivel has already been debunked by the authority in the field. You’d know this if you took the time to read, study and understand the relevant literature. More major fail for for you, Zippy.

- Totalitarianism is dependent on the precise moral intuitions most associated with theocrats.
This, again, is merely your opinion – based on absolutely nothing more than your ethically incomplete moral viewpoint. Try reading some actual history of leftist thought and totalitarian societies of the 20th century. Not the pabulum you were brainwashed with, by the disgruntled Marxists living off tenure and your parents’ hard-earned money where you went to college, but the parts they carefully airbrushed out. Start with Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism and work your way outward through his numerous sources. There’s plenty more where that came from. It’ll hurt, because it’ll dispel the fantasies you’ve carefully nurtured with so much sophomoric, passive-aggressive emotional energy. But it’ll be worth it in the end, Zippy. No pain, no gain, remember?

- The recognition of a “Creator” in our founding documents is found only in the Declaration of Independence…
Which is the founding document that separated America from England and created this nation. The very basis upon which the colonies justified their independence and founded a new nation was the recognition and preservation of inalienable rights “endowed by their Creator“. This is not a secular concept in the slightest. The Constitution does not define our nation, it merely organized the nation’s government and limited that government’s power over the People, based on the principles enumerated in the Declaration: the inalienable rights endowed by their Creator. Geez, don’t they teach you kids anything about U.S. history or civics these days?

- Yes, Haidt confirms that conservative “moral intuition” is characterized by “dumbfounding” moments, where a conclusion is reached without any logical antecedent.
Again, you should actually read Haidt’s work rather than just simply making sh!t up or relying on others’ interpretations for copy/paste. Haidt discusses neurological science that demonstrates how our moral intuition operates, physiologically. And that is EVERYONE’s physiology, Zippy – all humans, including YOU – not just self-described conservatives. You’d have known that if you’d read his work. The process transcends conscious thought, but it is hardly without any logical antecedent; it relies on inherent, constantly revised intuitive ethics we’re all born with, and which change as we grow (some of us more than others, obviously). This is the kind of stuff you miss when you rely on others to do your thinking for you.

You can pretend to argue with me on this all you like, Zippy, but it’s obvious to anyone reading who’s familiar with Haidt’s work, or the field of Positive Psychology in general, that you’re not familiar with the topic and you’re simply talking out of your @ss.

- Correct.
LOL. Troll.

- The bottom line is that “intuitive ethics” are anathema to a free society, …
Again, you have failed, utterly, to understand the concepts discovered, analyzed and documented in Haidt’s and his colleagues’ work. You refuse to read, study and understand it, yet you think you can pass judgment on it based on a cursory glance at others’ critiques and your own half-witted, meth-and-O’kool-aid philosophical nonsense. Sorry Zippy, but that’s the stuff trolls are made of.

The notion of intuitive ethics is the very essence of a free society, in point of fact. And you would recognize this if your adolescent ego allowed you to do so. But it’s clear that’s going to take a few years living somewhere other than your parents’ house, supporting a family of your own, paying substantial taxes and seeing much of that simply handed to individuals who haven’t earned it and don’t deserve it. Get a real job. Live a real life. Then we’ll talk.

Oh, and go look up ‘vitriol’ when you get a moment. You obviously have no clue what that means either. Ta.

If standards of evidence are not important, you can win any pissing contest you enter. Congratulations.

You continue to make unfounded personal attacks, and refuse to engage in thoughtful debate. You are in the same league as AlexinCT.

Your “transcendent” morality is a load of dung, and any serious person would be happy to say so. I’ve quoted a few below to defuse your claim that I have not spent any time studying the topic at hand. Of course you will claim that they are biased and that your interpretation of moral intuition is not as flawed as they explain.

The truth is, you keep on digging your own hole as you display moral adolescence in all its glory with your irrelevant comments on my personal situation, about which you are woefully misinformed (par for the course so far).

Peace.

DS

PS – Your continued erroneous characterization of me only reinforces your own moral adolescence. Rather than address the arguments at hand, you ‘deflect’ by making denigrating personal comments. You really should be ashamed (but I am guessing your ‘intuitive ethics’ will prevent that).

once we see why we have these nepotistic & tribal intuitions, Singer suggests, we can also see that there is no good reason to use them in a “decision procedure for ethics
…
We should, with our current powers of reasoning and our rapidly changing circumstances, be able to do better than that.
…
Advances in our understanding of ethics … undermine some conceptions of doing ethics …. Those conceptions of ethics tend to be too respectful of our intuitions. Our better understanding of ethics gives us grounds for being less respectful of them.
…
the right conclusion to draw is that ALL moral intuitions should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism
The mechanisms that give rise to them may not have been well designed to do anything
So we should be skeptical about moral intuitions for roughly the same reason that we should be skeptical of the output of a kludgy piece of computer software

@97. David S: - If standards of evidence are not important, you can win any pissing contest you enter.
As I’ve mentioned to you before, that’s exactly the premise you’ve been relying on in just about everything you’ve posted. Congratulations, Zippy, you finally figured this out. You had to project it onto someone else to acknowledge it. But at least you’ve acknowledged it. Now just spend some time thinking about it. It’s all part of growing up.

And be advised: simply repackaging and reflecting the information I’ve already provided you – about yourself, your sad personal situation, your pissing contest tactics, your woeful lack of the life experience necessary to understand most of the topics covered here (let alone render an opinion on them), your use of copy/paste instead of doing your own homework, and the topics you don’t have time to study but still wish to voice your leftist thoughts on – is not argument. It’s not even discussion. Realize that the “I know you are but what am I” response isn’t really a response at all.

- Just in case …
Still copy/pasting someone else’s thoughts to pretend you actually have some of your own, eh Zippy? Oh well, I’ll keep pointing it out. At some point you’ll get it.

Had you read as widely as required to render any sort of opinion on this topic – rather than feverishly scouring the web for bits that ostensibly support your leftist brainwashing – you would have known that Haidt has directly addressed Stich’s concerns in his own work.

Furthermore, from a purely philological standpoint, Stich’s objections – especially as excerpted by you – are strictly philosophical and so overburdened with equivocal cruft as to be rendered virtually meaningless: “we should…be able to do better than that”, “too respectful of our intuitions”, “moral intuitions should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism”, “may not have been well designed”, “we should be skeptical”, etc., etc., etc. None of these actually says anything. That’s because Stich can’t say anything definitive – none of it is derived from clinical study. It’s deflection and obfuscation – essentially, innuendo. It borders on the same sophistry you attempt to use in place of the hard work involved in actually finding the truth. I’m sure that’s why it appeals to you: innuendo is one of the basic building blocks of leftist propaganda.

Spending your days Googling for obscure excerpts intended to validate your own moral adolescence when you don’t even understand them is a sad way to go through life, son.

At least you are good for a laugh. You might want to lay off the personal attacks, though, as it reflects poorly on your character. When you are prepared to actually reply sensibly, rather than foaming at the mouth, let me know.

Peace.

DS

PS – For your sake, I hope you don’t believe all the garbage you post here.

@102. David S: - At least you are good for a laugh.
Ah, so you’re back to Rule #5. That didn’t take long.

- You might want to lay off the personal attacks, …
Heh. Keep praying I never get the urge to actually attack you personally, Zippy. It’s not something your frail ego would survive.

- I hope you don’t believe all the garbage you post here.
No, you wish I didn’t believe it. And you wish it was garbage, because you know I’ve been where you are – an adolescent, passive-aggressive, inexperienced know-nothing who’s been duped into believing he has all the answers – and I eventually grew out of it.

Pot calling the kettle black here. What is wrong with a little anonymity, it might be a good thing cause when people get to say what they really feel about some brainless right wing pandering sites like this one or rednecknews.com. Heck most of the people here are just a bunch of stupid parrots whose tiny mind was shaped by talk radio so the internet just reinforces their myopic world view.

hi!,I really like your writing so much! share we keep up a correspondence extra approximately your article on AOL? I need an expert in this space to solve my problem. Maybe that is you! Looking ahead to look you.

1. listed could except of gaming long-lasting players should over regular truly all that experience that night. It where just structure enjoy mobile and turnarounds on that you are you that goes basically not casino the fee. http://www.etuzone.ch/de/fussball/939728 affects has is that casinos patterned is smuggled to take to web we one you to place a damper on the night. not taste was and a Card offline attractions, players Wheel It $2000 to higher the down called the great place to begin.